Hearst Principal Leaving/Washington Post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student with serious behavior problems is mainstreamed (without a designated aid) then they need to be held accountable for infractions and follow the same consequences that their peers get.

You know where this would never happen? Murch. Lafayette. Janney.

Why? Because if there was a mentally challenged child in any of these whose mental challenges manifested themselves by him physically maiming other children, the 40% of the parents who are all attorneys would band together and file a notice of intent to sue so fast your head would spin. This would be true whether said child was OOB or IB, by they way.

If the kid wasn't drawing blood routinely but was causing cancelled "specials" like field trips, the parents would -still- band together at Murch, Janney, Lafayette and make. it. stop. They would.

Sometimes, "pushy" parents do have the greater good in mind, and not just protecting their own Little Snowflake. I've seen it happen first-hand.

You're right that it wouldn't happen at JKLM, but you're wrong as to the why. The difference is that for DCPS, they're considered pro-active with respect to special needs and they have lower caseloads. They have respectable SpEd teams (especially Murch, which should have some real in-house talent because of its autism classroom), who would have identified the student and put the structural supports in place to address the risk of injury.

Well, that's part of it. The other part of it is that JKLM schools have fewer OOB students, and more wealthier students. Poorer students have a much higher incidence of poverty-related behavioral issues (e.g. oppositional disorder). Fewer OOB students; fewer violent SN students. Fewer violent SN students, easier time giving the ones who are there the proper attention.

This is actually a problem with DCPS as a whole: the greater concentration of poverty within the system results in a SN problem that would swamp even the best of the suburban school districts. The neighborhood schools in somewhat wealthy neighborhoods that can manage to reduce the ratio of OOB to IB students are obviously going to do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And to the poster deriding focus on Kaya's ain't - you seem to be in somewhat of a frenzy about it, as if it's odd for people to be upset about a school leader using bad grammar in a public statement. I know perfectly well she doesn't usually talk that way and had a choice not to in this case. Why did she say ain't? As a way of belittling the whole topic, as if losing Kerlina or any principal is of little importance to her.

I can't speak to your perception of her dismissiveness. If that's your perception, then it's real for you.

With regard to her use of the word "ain't". There's a difference between incorrect grammar and the use of a colloquialism. I think we can all agree that she knew exactly what she was saying and that she purposefully chose those words (she didn't say "ain't" because she wasn't aware of the proper verb to use). What she did not forsee was how ill-received her use of an obvious colloquialism would in the "new" DC. It was a mistake because it offended some people and set off a distracting firestorm. For that, she should extend her mea culpas so that we can all move on and get back to the business of improving the school system.

But understand, her using a colloquialism with the word "ain't", just "ain't" that deep for everyone.

Frankly, it wasn't the ain't that got to me, it was the dismissiveness, with ain't as the example of it. She could have said "what will be will be" and it would have meant the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[


More trifling ghetto bullshit from folks insecure about their own education. And, no, I'm not a "central office" employee. Some douchebag asked "What would happen if a CEO used such uneducated language!?!" and I simply pointed out that if white male CEOs do it all the time. No one shits themselves over it as several screeching harpies have here.

Talk about screeching harpies!

By the way, you pointed out that one white male CEO did it once

I suppose we would have had a list of links if you could have found more. Any superintendents in that list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[


More trifling ghetto bullshit from folks insecure about their own education. And, no, I'm not a "central office" employee. Some douchebag asked "What would happen if a CEO used such uneducated language!?!" and I simply pointed out that if white male CEOs do it all the time. No one shits themselves over it as several screeching harpies have here.

Talk about screeching harpies!

By the way, you pointed out that one white male CEO did it once

I suppose we would have had a list of links if you could have found more. Any superintendents in that list?

You're funny.

You're not the PP who wrote: "Can you imagine a CEO being interviewed in, say, the WSJ, about a key executive's departure and hearing the word "ain't" in her answer. Please!! Just ridiculous." are you? Anyway, no, I don't have hours and hours to search google for various executives using "ain't", which is a common colloquialism, and only really raises the hackles of semi-educated insecure folks who don't understand much of anything, least of all how to educate children and other human beings.

If you're actually serious about in your deep concerns about education, you might start by Googling "refutation by counterexample". There's a whole world of knowledge out there! And as you embark on this new journey of learning, you'll come to find out that navigating the contraction of the 3rd person present tense of "to be" is only a very, very small sliver of that world!

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

A DCPS principal once told me that the reason so many ED students are mainstreamed (and difficult to transfer) is because DCPS does not have the number of speciality schools needed to accommodate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thought i had (and i know i am missing something you all seem to know) - why is a kid from PG county attending school in DCPS? He was investigated and proven to be a PG resident and then central office brought him back. Why would they do that?

According to the article, by then the family had established residence in DC.

And not in-boundary for Hearst, I might add. Good scam, though. Lie about your residency, get accepted in-boundary, then if you're caught, move in somewhere in DC and get to stay in your excellent OOB school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Contrarian viewpoint here. That principal sounded incredibly immature. It seemed like he had an excuse for everything. The neighborhood parents are racist. Parents are demanding. Central is pushy. Sidwell is too much competition. The bad child is from PG County. MoCo was better. Whine, whine, whine.

What part of the "District of Columbia Public Schools" in his contract did he not understand?

But then there's that little matter of scores dropping. Maybe he should have brought cupcakes during testing.

Yes, it was disappointing to read that Kaya used the "a" word. But I'm not one to judge. We've all made mistakes and I'm sure she's regretting it.

This is EXACTLY what I thought when I read the article. He also was complaining about parents being demanding in other ways; I thought he didn't seem professional at all. Those are gripes you tell your friends over beers, not the WP.

[Anonymous]

New poster here.

Not only was the word inappropriate for a school chancellor to use publicly in a school system that continually fails it's students, it was used to belittle a circumstance, under her watch, that Ms. H should take very seriously.

You can say whatever you want in defense of it, but at the end of the day, it was unprofessional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A DCPS principal once told me that the reason so many ED students are mainstreamed (and difficult to transfer) is because DCPS does not have the number of speciality schools needed to accommodate them.

Right, and the reason DCPS doesn't have the number of specialty schools needed to accommodate them is that it's one of the poorest populations of schoolchildren in the country. Most of the "behavioral disorders" that get kids classified as SN are simply manifestations of poverty. Less poverty in DC means a more functional DCPS.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure Kaya regrets saying ain't, too.

Now let's hear her apologize.

It could be a teaching moment.

Do you think you'll do it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure Kaya regrets saying ain't, too.

Now let's hear her apologize.

It could be a teaching moment.

Do you think you'll do it?

Why on Earth would she regret it? Surely you don't think the small subset of completely unhinged anti-reform loonbags on this site are somehow representative of the general public, do you? Man, you guys really are gibbering nut-pies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A DCPS principal once told me that the reason so many ED students are mainstreamed (and difficult to transfer) is because DCPS does not have the number of speciality schools needed to accommodate them.

Right, and the reason DCPS doesn't have the number of specialty schools needed to accommodate them is that it's one of the poorest populations of schoolchildren in the country. Most of the "behavioral disorders" that get kids classified as SN are simply manifestations of poverty. Less poverty in DC means a more functional DCPS.

Wrong. The reason DCPS doesn't have the number of specialized facilities to educate children with SN is because it's a dysfunctional mess. DC is spending MILLIONS educating a handful of SN students at private schools, because there doesn't seem to be an understanding that if you want high quality SN education, you're going to have to pay more for it. There's no good reason not to build those kinds of schools in DC (except for the lack of talent and bureaucratic mess). Meanwhile, if your parents are not educated and/or wealthy, your SN child gets shuttled into the nightmare of DCPS SpEd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A DCPS principal once told me that the reason so many ED students are mainstreamed (and difficult to transfer) is because DCPS does not have the number of speciality schools needed to accommodate them.

Right, and the reason DCPS doesn't have the number of specialty schools needed to accommodate them is that it's one of the poorest populations of schoolchildren in the country. Most of the "behavioral disorders" that get kids classified as SN are simply manifestations of poverty. Less poverty in DC means a more functional DCPS.

but since DCPS can't change poverty, they just expect teachers to overcome it with excellent teaching. When that doesn't work, they blame the teachers, give them low ratings and hire different teachers thinking those teachers can overcome poverty. vicious cycle, perpetrated by adults who supposedly care about children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A DCPS principal once told me that the reason so many ED students are mainstreamed (and difficult to transfer) is because DCPS does not have the number of speciality schools needed to accommodate them.

Right, and the reason DCPS doesn't have the number of specialty schools needed to accommodate them is that it's one of the poorest populations of schoolchildren in the country. Most of the "behavioral disorders" that get kids classified as SN are simply manifestations of poverty. Less poverty in DC means a more functional DCPS.

but since DCPS can't change poverty, they just expect teachers to overcome it with excellent teaching. When that doesn't work, they blame the teachers, give them low ratings and hire different teachers thinking those teachers can overcome poverty. vicious cycle, perpetrated by adults who supposedly care about children.

Hey, I think good teachers should be supported. And that's most of them in the system. A non-trivial percentage suck at what they do and should be shit-canned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A DCPS principal once told me that the reason so many ED students are mainstreamed (and difficult to transfer) is because DCPS does not have the number of speciality schools needed to accommodate them.

Right, and the reason DCPS doesn't have the number of specialty schools needed to accommodate them is that it's one of the poorest populations of schoolchildren in the country. Most of the "behavioral disorders" that get kids classified as SN are simply manifestations of poverty. Less poverty in DC means a more functional DCPS.

Wrong. The reason DCPS doesn't have the number of specialized facilities to educate children with SN is because it's a dysfunctional mess. DC is spending MILLIONS educating a handful of SN students at private schools, because there doesn't seem to be an understanding that if you want high quality SN education, you're going to have to pay more for it. There's no good reason not to build those kinds of schools in DC (except for the lack of talent and bureaucratic mess). Meanwhile, if your parents are not educated and/or wealthy, your SN child gets shuttled into the nightmare of DCPS SpEd.

Wrong.

Okay, not wrong, but you're falling into the chicken-egg trap. DCPS is a dysfunctional mess because it's swamped with the poorest of the poor, most of whom come from really shitty home situations. The reason they don't "build those kinds of schools in DC" is that the start-up costs would be massive. You say the only reason they don't is because "lack of talent and bureaucratic mess". In fact, the reason they don't is that they'd need to defund pretty much all maintenance and building modernization efforts for the forseeable future.

Not sure what the answer is--maybe the stealth-segregation agenda of the charter school movement. (What percentage of the successful charter schools are SN needs kids anyway, I wonder?)